HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-03-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

TERRORISM (SURFACE TRANSPORT SECURITY) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:58): I stand on behalf of the opposition to speak in support of the Terrorism (Surface Transport Security) Bill 2011. The threat of terrorism is ongoing, and Australia needs to remain vigilant to the potential risks of terrorist attacks. Strategies must be put in place not only to deter terrorist attacks but also, certainly, to make sure that the population is kept as safe as possible if we have the unfortunate incident of an attack here in South Australia.

Following a COAG agreement on surface transport security, we are now implementing South Australia's part of this agreement. It is my understanding that all other states will have their own legislation—some have passed it in those jurisdictions and some are yet to pass it. As we would all expect, mass transport is a prime target for terrorists and, sadly, we have seen some mass transport targeted over the years.

Only a couple of nights ago I saw a documentary—or it may have been, perhaps, Foreign Correspondent on Tuesday night—talking about the Lockerbie bombing of the Pan American flight some 25 or 22 years ago. So, terrorist attacks on mass transit lines have been around for a very long time.

While often people think about capital cities as these particular areas, I am reminded of my own home district, the townships of Bordertown and the township of Keith, although it is not home for me but it is in the same district. For a long time, strategies have been put in place to deal with disasters, more so than terrorist attacks.

Members would be aware that the Adelaide to Melbourne railway line runs through those towns, as well as the Adelaide to Melbourne highway and, often the same path is used by Adelaide to Melbourne aircraft. I know a lot of planning was done around a disaster, an unfortunate set of circumstances, where maybe a bus has a collision with a passenger train and there are multiple fatalities. Those sorts of targets are what this bill is looking to address.

The bill requires certain transport operators to implement counterterrorism plans. My understanding from reading the contributions from the minister in the other place is that, at the discretion of the minister, an operator will be identified as at risk of an attack due to the size, location, iconic status or quantity of passengers. I will be asking a couple of questions when we get to the committee stage in relation to places such as Bordertown and Keith that have major highways. I know that there are plenty of places that have major highways, major rail corridors, as well as being under the flight paths between our capital cities.

The bill will clarify 'security identifies surface transport operations' (SISTO), and they may encompass places, activities or systems. An example that has been given to me is for a football game at AAMI, a crowded shopping centre, or a public function put on by the Adelaide City Council. I forewarn the minister's advisers that when we get to the committee stage of the bill I am very keen to pursue answers to some questions about the new proposed development at the Adelaide Oval, given the number of people who will be using public transport in getting to and from that particular venue and exactly how the preparation of plans will impact on that particular venue.

I understand a number of security plans are already in existence, as required by the contractual agreements with state government—I think it is with existing metropolitan public transport providers—and the safety and regulation division within DTEI is responsible for ensuring that those transport operators are meeting those contractual arrangements. While it says the officers within DTEI are responsible for ensuring they meet those contractual arrangements, I would be keen to hear what the penalties are for not meeting those contractual arrangements.

The opposition has been satisfied. We have contacted the stakeholders, and most of them, we understand, support this bill. We still seek clarification from the minister on the level of assistance that DTEI may provide to smaller operators if they are identified as having one of these SISTOs to assist in the preparation of the plan. Minister Conlon was not particularly clear in his answer to the shadow minister's question in the other place.

With those few comments, the opposition does not want to prolong the debate. We have always been happy to support the government when it certainly has kept the community safe. We also appreciate that a lot of the information in relation to terrorism is kept secret from the public because the nature of the information may make it a greater target. I look forward to having some questions answered in the committee stage of the bill and indicate the opposition is happy to support the second reading of the debate.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for Gambling) (16:04): I understand there are no other members wishing to contribute on this bill. I thank the Hon. Mr Ridgway for his contribution, his indication of support, and wish to proceed with the committee stage forthwith.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I think it is an opportune time to ask just two or three questions. I understand that it is probably unlikely that the minister can provide me with details of particular towns but, given that I mentioned Bordertown and Keith in my second reading contribution, are the sort of circumstances that I have identified, where you have a town on a major interstate highway, a major interstate railway (in fact, in Bordertown, the highway crosses the train line) and, of course, on a flight path, likely to be areas of interest when it comes to developing plans? If so, who actually develops the plan?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The government is not in a position to advise on whether any particular area or facility would be covered or not because, obviously, that is not the sort of information that we would wish—I don't think anyone would wish—to be in the public realm in the sense that we do not want to identify what we see as the most likely targets. All I can do in that regard really is repeat the definition in the act and the honourable leader would have to make his own judgement about whether he thinks certain places would be covered or not. In relation to the second point the honourable member raised, I am advised that it would be the local government authority in that instance.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: So, if you have multiple transport operators operating in different modes in an area, it is local government that will prepare that plan rather than the individual operators?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: That is my advice, yes.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: If I can just follow on from that, in the scenario raised by the Hon. Mr Ridgway, will the minister advise: if we are in an area outside of council boundaries, who becomes responsible for that? It is not a laughing matter; it is a serious question.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am advised that it would be whoever the owner of the transport operation is in that particular instance.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I was going to ask this question last, but I will ask it now. Given that we have on the table a proposal for the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval and we will clearly have an interaction between buses (Torrens Transit and probably one of the other operators), trams (certainly will be involved) and also the metropolitan rail service—so you have private operators and government-run trains—who will be responsible for, say, the river precinct and the Adelaide Oval? Who is responsible for the development of the plans for that area?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am advised that, in that instance, it would be the individual transport operators. The bill is concerned about the intersection of people and transport, not a venue per se, like the oval. So, it would be the operators of those transport services.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In that example of transport operators, what mechanism has been put in place to ensure that all the plans are complementary and that you are not just having one operator saying, 'We're going to do X,' and another operator saying, 'We are going to do Y'? What process and mechanism is in place to make sure that those plans are consistent and complementary to each other and not in conflict?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am advised that clause 6 deals with the counterterrorism plans and subclause (6) talks about the regulations that may impose standards, and that would include things like training exercises, in which case there would be cooperation between different providers to ensure that they mesh. Indeed, that is the sort of thing that has happened in the past. I also point out that the minister is able to request copies of the counterterrorism plan for any particular operator. If the minister wanted to be satisfied, where there were different operators in a particular area, that those plans were complementary, he or she could request copies.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am interested in an answer from the minister in relation to where the transport provider's jurisdiction finishes. When you are on a bus or a train, you are clearly in the care and control of that operator. I will use Adelaide Oval and football as an example. I assume we will have a similar arrangement as exists now at AAMI Stadium, where you can purchase a footy ticket that includes your bus ticket to the football at AAMI and back again. I suspect that, if Adelaide Oval proceeds, then football will be played in the city, so you will be able to catch the train here as well. If you buy a ticket that has a public transport component and a football component, does it mean that the plan must encompass a venue like Adelaide Oval, the precinct between Adelaide Oval and the train station, and then, of course, the train operator's plan.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am advised that an order can cover a place, activity or system. It would be envisaged that were there to be a particular threat at a particular location (based on intelligence received or what have you), an order could be made which, while it could be related to transport, could cover a particular precinct and the movement in and out of there on transport.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Clearly, we will have different modes of transport and different operators and, as the minister explained, that will be up to each operator. However, we are going to have a portion of the city that passengers will have to move across. If that area is to be identified as a place or an activity, is the local council the responsible authority to develop the plan? In the Adelaide Oval case, is it Stadium Management Authority, or, during the winter, football, and in summer, cricket, or is it the state government because, clearly, the government is going to have a big financial stake in both that and Riverside?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am advised that any of those organisations could be encompassed by the declaration—that would be a matter for the minister. It would generally be unlikely that the sporting organisation would necessarily be part of a declaration, but that would depend on the circumstances. Certainly, the relevant council would be expected to have a role, but again it depends on the circumstances and the declaration made.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In a slightly different place, in this city we have seen the government introduce for public consultation a bill on liquor licensing and the provision of four monitored, patrolled and well-organised taxi ranks to take young people home from the city at 4am. Are taxi ranks, where you may have several hundred people congregating waiting for a taxi, likely to be places subject to a terrorism plan?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am advised again that the government is not in a position to indicate whether any particular areas are likely or not likely to be included, but certainly a taxi rank could be the sort of area about which a declaration could be made, based on an assessment of the threat.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: If it was, would that be the responsibility of local government (it would have to be, I assume), given that you have a range of different taxi operators operating from a rank?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Again, I am advised that that would depend on the terms of the declaration, but in that instance it would most likely be the local government authority and the operators of the taxi companies.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I note that clause 6(1) of the bill talks about a counterterrorism plan and provides:

(1) The operator of a security identified surface transport operation must prepare a counter terrorism plan for the transport operation in accordance with this section.

Maximum penalty: $50,000.

I pose a question about the existing major metropolitan public transport providers, who I understand may have some contractual arrangements to provide these sort of terrorism plans. What penalties are imposed upon those providers if they do not provide those particular plans?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am advised that, under current contractual arrangements, if a contract were breached that would be a contract matter, which would be determined by litigation if required, if a party decided to sue for breach of the contract. Certainly, in drafting the bill care has been taken to take into account the contractual arrangements already in place, so the work that has already been done in the past in relation to having plans prepared is not required to be done all over again, or the two requirements do not conflict. It is intended that they would work hand in hand, but if a particular company were not currently meeting their contractual obligations that would be a contractual matter.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My final question relates to future planning in relation to transport and the fact that these plans will need to be drawn up. Does the department, when looking at either extensions to passenger transport networks or road networks, take into consideration the risk of terrorism and the movement of people in and out of places when that planning work is done?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am advised yes.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 14) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for Gambling) (16:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT